If you ask me, option #1 is just for people that are too lazy to plan a strategy, option #2 is realistic, I prefer option #2

Besides, nukes travel a lot slower than fleets, so it's really really hard to make it so the situation that sparked all this happen again

Sorry for double post, but to add to this quote:

Missiles have a minimum travel time of 6 ticks and a max of 12 ticks. They are actually faster than squads with the exception of the minimum 6 tick travel time and they can attack a target 4800km away in 12 ticks, squads take 24 ticks to attack that same distance.

-Andrew

As Kane said, people are voting without an understanding on how the CURRENT nuke system is working, therefore they are voting to change a non-existent system..

In my opinion, you found a glitch. Do you fix the glitch or do you call a community vote to totally re-map the nuke system? If option 2 DOES get though, I really hope that you test it on one world before implementing it into every world, I really don't see it doing anything except destroying the strategy and coordination that players have been using. Battlefields will be filled with nuke spams, players will not be able use nukes strategicly, only mindlessly spam them at other players. I think that if everybody KNEW what the current system was and what option 1 and 2 actually meant there would be a lot more votes for option 1 and a lot less for option 2.

Phew, rant over. Don't want to say that calling for mass community feedback is bad, it's great - I just really don't think that option 2 will be a change for the better. Thanks

Missiles have a minimum distance of 6, yes... but their max distance has been 24 ticks for 2 years now. The old client model was never fully recreated in the new client. How can you, with that said, lecture us on what is or isn't a bug regarding how nukes work?

Oh, yeah it's been too long since I've played a round. Apologies on the mis-info there I thought it had been changed to 12 because it was something discussed before. I'm going to be playing a round hopefully starting sometime in the next few weeks with a gamer buddy of mine, need to shake off the rust and get a good feel for the current game live. I just hope I can keep up with a serious round...

It would be a bug if the system wasn't acting right. It was coded to handle all leaving units from a target the same and that's what it was doing. It's a scenario that warrants looking into changing which is what we're doing but that doesn't make it a bug; Simply a scenario that some found unfair(Unable to ion the missile) so we're looking into tweaking the system to improve it. If we changed missiles to only kill 5% of units instead of 10% because some felt that 10% was unfair should we comp everyone back 1/2 their losses from missiles for the past week? The past year?

The game changes and evolves, balancing happens all the time. We can't be comping losses to systems that get tweaked, only for things that are actually bugs.

If we changed missiles to only kill 5% of units instead of 10% because some felt that 10% was unfair should we comp everyone back 1/2 their losses from missiles for the past week? The past year?

The game changes and evolves, balancing happens all the time. We can't be comping losses to systems that get tweaked, only for things that are actually bugs.

Andrew that doesn't make any sense. Compensation is not being asked for a change that is gonna be made in the future, because at present it cost us something. Nukes have always killed 10%, so if tomorrow you change it to 5%, then no one is gonna ask you compensation. That is totally different from compensating someone for losses incurred due to a bug.

In this case, we weren't able to ion the nuke, because of which we lost far more units than what we should have. Because of a bug. And the reason for the bug is that it has been coded such that units leaving and 1 tick away when a nuke hits, get reduced to 1 hp. That becomes a bug in this case, since the squads weren't leaving, they were returning. This wasn't foreseen, and therefore its a bug in the feature. And that is why the need to be compensated.

An oversight in game design, means a particular boundary condition for a feature implemented was not considered. Its not a big mistake, but it always happens when writing a piece of software. But that is what causes a bug...and in this scenario where nukes couldn't be countered.

My alliance was locked down on an OP and we were under attack because I lost the refresh race before the 1-tick spy immunity was added (this is why it was added). I kicked the member who owned the OP and it saved the rest of our armies because we floated on the OP.

Eventually Seth and Michael agreed with my side, but do you remember what happened first? You banned me without a second thought. The game had always worked like that, same circumstances, but this time it was against me and so you banned me and immediately compensated both sides of the issue.

This time you're giving us a big middle finger because you're PRETENDING that it was always supposed to work this way, which is a bold faced LIE. It was never purposeful that a nuke was supposed to act this way.

My alliance was locked down on an OP and we were under attack because I lost the refresh race before the 1-tick spy immunity was added (this is why it was added). I kicked the member who owned the OP and it saved the rest of our armies because we floated on the OP.

Eventually Seth and Michael agreed with my side, but do you remember what happened first? You banned me without a second thought. The game had always worked like that, same circumstances, but this time it was against me and so you banned me and immediately compensated both sides of the issue.

This time you're giving us a big middle finger because you're PRETENDING that it was always supposed to work this way, which is a bold faced LIE. It was never purposeful that a nuke was supposed to act this way.

The other situation was different because it abused a loophole in the system, floating squads was supposed to be removed in the new client with the creation of camps but squads could "float" on any target that wasn't owned by their alliance. This could only happen by alliance members leaving with alliance units on their outposts.

The situation where you abused this loophole shone a big light on it due to the very public nature of it which resulted in the change getting pushed through immediately so it wouldn't be abused.

The situation that happened here with the missiles affecting your units even though you cannot ion them is not a fault or a bug, it's simply a result of the game mechanics. Personally I have no big issue with the scenario but I understand why many do which is why we're looking to tweak the mechanics. The system was designed to affect squads leaving any target the tick before a missile lands, it did not differentiate between returning or leaving statuses. This caused an issue in this scenario(Missile hitting a colony 1 tick after an attack happens) because it limits the counters to turning back the squads to avoid the losses or eating the damage and sending units to defend the origin from a counterattack on the weakened units.

It's not a bug/loophole that was abused therefore we're not going to comp for the losses. The situation sparked the debate to change it so that either we remove the scenario or add in a counter to it.

In the case of the floating squads it was against how the system was supposed to work and therefor was a loophole; In this case of a missile hitting a target a tick after your units leave it the system was acting as it was designed/coded.

I understand that you want compensation for losses here but the losses were legit, not caused by a bug or exploit but by a missile you asked an ally to send at the target.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum